peter11435
Well-Known Member
Central Florida Tourism Oversight District is going to look really stupid on those Disney Springs trash cans.
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
News Reedy Creek Improvement District and the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District
- Thread starter castlecake2.0
- Start date
It’s also just a waste of money to have to rebrand everything that’s basically doing the same job
Sirwalterraleigh
Premium Member
I think we totally agree…1st time for everything
Sirwalterraleigh
Premium Member
I believe the statement from Vahle was it…
Think ego Bob is gonna say something?
Lol
peter11435
Well-Known Member
Yep. The name change is just more proof that it’s less about oversight and constitutionality and more about blatant power grabs, silencing, and making an example of Disney.
The District should sue the state to cover the cost of all signage replacements
A few things come to mind reading the last few pages.
1: A few posters, and most news stories are still stuck on the district dissolving and not the new law that redefines and takes control of the existing district. Bonus news stories that still do not understand how the district works.
2: Lots of posts about how the change will impact park project content. That misses the point, it’s how park projects will be impacted because of any Disney content, they don't need to be related. I suppose that Disney reducing the amount of park projects reduces the impact surface. There’s still basic operations impacts possible.
3: It was not long ago that Disney extended Bob C's contract and he was here for the long run then. Then, that completely changed. I’m not saying Disney is going to change and fight this vs being done, just that things change and we’re not going to know until we know.
1: A few posters, and most news stories are still stuck on the district dissolving and not the new law that redefines and takes control of the existing district. Bonus news stories that still do not understand how the district works.
2: Lots of posts about how the change will impact park project content. That misses the point, it’s how park projects will be impacted because of any Disney content, they don't need to be related. I suppose that Disney reducing the amount of park projects reduces the impact surface. There’s still basic operations impacts possible.
3: It was not long ago that Disney extended Bob C's contract and he was here for the long run then. Then, that completely changed. I’m not saying Disney is going to change and fight this vs being done, just that things change and we’re not going to know until we know.
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
That alone should be pretty strong evidence that there isn’t some secret back room deal that actually makes this all work in Disney’s favor. Right off the top it is committing the district to spending a bunch of money on something incredibly performative and useless. The legislation even gives the process two years because it is such a cumbersome process. A big part of why cities don’t like renaming things is because it’s so expensive and those funds would have a better use.
Sirwalterraleigh
Premium Member
Good points
twilight mitsuk
Well-Known Member
Just turn them over to Disney
Sirwalterraleigh
Premium Member
See I don’t think so. For one: you have a really virulent (no pun) strain of carpet baggers in the political ranks now. They have no nuance/can’t negotiate their way out of a paper bag.
Second: Disney relationship with Florida has decayed a little over the years. That dates back to the Eisner era…there’s a resentment - unfounded - towards Disney that usually is based on false or mistaken premises. The reality is it’s kinda like a “college town” dynamic.
Central Fla exists Mainly due to Disney. There was nothing there prior and now it’s a money machine…but the locals don’t want to hear that.
If you’ve ever been involved in a big college town (as I have many moons ago)…it’s the same dynamic.
Last edited:
peter11435
Well-Known Member
Yep.
And people seem to not realize that it’s not just new projects that could get held up. Daily operations could be impacted. The district does routine inspections for fire safety, elevators, etc and will now have added responsibility and oversight in other areas. Not to mention water, sewage, chilled water, hot water, drainage, trash removal, gas, roadway maintenance…. Heck even an extensive amount of landscaping around the district is contracted and funded by the district
peter11435
Well-Known Member
The district owns the garages. No reason to believe that the state would want to “turn them over to Disney” or that Disney would want to accept them.
Sirwalterraleigh
Premium Member
I’ll just go ahead and fill everyone in on how adding an extra layer or two of “oversight” plays…
It ain’t good.
But if you need reassuring…just know that the people that wrote this trash/are signing it has zero…nada…Nein! Idea what they’re dealing with.
This could and likely will cause massive changes to what Disney will build/operate.
So get ready for your after hours “experience” to go up a lot in price…enjoy mine train
Sirwalterraleigh
Premium Member
Nothing stopping them from charging for them either
SirLink
Well-Known Member
Should of been called General Tourism Florida Oversight District ...
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
The legislation prohibits the district from making such changes. The time gap likely makes actually getting a transfer done doubtful. There would also be potential bond issues with trying to transfer the garages. As a last resort the new board could try to take them back with eminent domain.
Waiting does not provide a more straightforward challenge. The district and its board have broad authority. There are all sorts of things they could do with a strong veneer of reasonableness within their powers and duties that would make it more difficult to identify as as a harm, especially one intrinsically linked to the new structure of the district. Realistically, at best, you’d be looking at isolated challenges to very specific actions that would only potentially overturn that specific action.
peter11435
Well-Known Member
I’m not sure they actually could
Tha Realest
Well-Known Member
I agree with this. I also think the “hostility to Disney” stuff that would’ve been helpful in a First Amendment challenge to the law as a whole gets more attenuated when “the board” is acting on discrete things within its purview
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
Unless it’s in the bonds, I’m not sure anything would stop them. I believe it was more a promise that parking would be free because there was an uproar over the district building the garages.
Adding parking fees to the garages would be an easy way to increase the burden on Disney while following their obligations. Reconfiguring the garages to collect a fee would be a huge expense largely carried by Disney but it could be done “to ensure the debts created by Disney are paid.” New expenses for not behaving but all well within the districts powers.
JoeCamel
Well-Known Member
The chair of the committee expressed concern for the cost of the name change and pegged it at $65M. Too late now